public inbox for binutils@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Cc: Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86: Remove libopcodes dependency
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 12:25:04 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c821b79f-c406-36d7-3a4e-50fe4b396538@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMe9rOqs6u0bw-mEJYAg2mLmKChhujQBp_t0vpo9WW9NT1ma-w@mail.gmail.com>

On 02.12.2022 18:19, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 11:16 PM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 01.12.2022 19:26, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 08:41:28AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> I understand you prefer it, but given you've found what's wrong
>>>> yourself, I'm puzzled by "I don't see anything wrong with my
>>>> approach". Or wait - looks like I misread what you pointed out
>>>> above: That looks to be something from the top level Makefile.
>>>> Yet then again I can't spot any such in my build trees. Where is
>>>> that excerpt from? (I can spot somewhat similar patterns, but
>>>> they're used strictly to recurse _down_, just like looks to be
>>>> the case with what you've quoted.)
>>>>
>>>> In any event, a practical manifestation of the issue I've said
>>>> I'm concerned of is this: If a 2nd party anywhere in the tree did
>>>> the same you do, and if the two $(MAKE) invocations then raced
>>>> with one another, then it's plain undefined what would happen to
>>>
>>> Fixed.
>>
>> In which way? You still ...
>>
>>> --- a/gas/Makefile.am
>>> +++ b/gas/Makefile.am
>>> @@ -448,6 +448,18 @@ development.exp: $(BFDDIR)/development.sh
>>>       $(EGREP) "(development|experimental)=" $(BFDDIR)/development.sh  \
>>>         | $(AWK) -F= '{ print "set " $$1 " " $$2 }' > $@
>>>
>>> +config/tc-i386.@OBJEXT@: $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-init.h \
>>> +     $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-tbl.h
>>> +
>>> +# i386-gen will generate both headers in one go.  Use a pattern rule to
>>> +# properly express this, with the inner dash ('-') arbitrarily chosen to
>>> +# be the stem.
>>> +$(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386%init.h $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386%tbl.h: @MAINT@ $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-opc.tbl \
>>> +     $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-reg.tbl \
>>> +     $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-opc.h \
>>> +     $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386-gen.c
>>> +     $(MAKE) -C ../opcodes gen-i386-tbl
>>
>> ... wrongly recurse from gas/ into opcodes/. In fact I can't spot any
>> change in regard to the cross-subdir operation that I continue to
>> object to. I'm afraid I'm unaware of ways to address this other than
>> by avoiding the recursive $(MAKE) invocation altogether.
> 
> $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386%init.h $(srcdir)/../opcodes/i386%tbl.h
> will invoke $(MAKE) only once.

But that was a separate problem I was complaining about. This does in no
way address the issue of inappropriate make recursion.

Unless I see a technically correct version from you by the end of this
week, I will commit my variant (series) early next week. It is pretty
unacceptable for you to block my (also further) work by insisting on the
use of a broken alternative patch. I've clearly indicated that I'm okay
with any solution that's better than mine, but such a solution has to be
free of (pretty obvious) flaws.

Jan

  reply	other threads:[~2022-12-05 11:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-22 18:19 [PATCH] " H.J. Lu
2022-11-23  8:36 ` Jan Beulich
2022-11-28 23:43   ` H.J. Lu
2022-11-29  9:12     ` Jan Beulich
2022-11-24 10:19 ` Jan Beulich
2022-11-28 23:49   ` [PATCH v2] " H.J. Lu
2022-11-29  9:22     ` Jan Beulich
2022-11-29 19:38       ` H.J. Lu
2022-11-30  0:06         ` H.J. Lu
2022-11-30  6:58           ` Jan Beulich
2022-11-30 22:22             ` H.J. Lu
2022-12-01  7:41               ` Jan Beulich
2022-12-01 18:26                 ` [PATCH v3] " H.J. Lu
2022-12-02  7:16                   ` Jan Beulich
2022-12-02 17:19                     ` H.J. Lu
2022-12-05 11:25                       ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2022-11-30  7:31         ` [PATCH v2] " Jan Beulich
2022-11-30 22:15           ` H.J. Lu
2022-12-01  7:21             ` Jan Beulich
2022-12-01 18:20               ` H.J. Lu
2022-12-02  7:10                 ` Jan Beulich

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=c821b79f-c406-36d7-3a4e-50fe4b396538@suse.com \
    --to=jbeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
    --cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).